Opinion
Submitted February 17, 1933 —
Decided May 15, 1933.
A petition was filed by the petitioner-respondent with the workmen's compensation bureau for compensation for the death of her husband, who died under the following circumstances: Deceased was employed in wheeling loads of cement in a heavy barrow on an unusually hot, close day. He worked all day, hurrying to finish the concrete work, and when his fellow workers stopped for the day, he continued to work overtime, and while so working was stricken. Held, that the risk of sunstroke was naturally connected with and reasonably incident to the work deceased was doing, and that his death occurred from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
"A determination of the workmen's compensation bureau holding that James George died from sunstroke, a natural cause, and that his death was not the result of any accident arising out of and in the course of his employment is before us.
"George was engaged in wheeling a wheelbarrow containing concrete at the Salvation Army Building, Pennington street, Newark. The day was unusually hot and close. The deceased had been working all day. He was stricken while he was doing overtime work. He pushed a heavy barrow and had been hurrying along all day to complete the laying of a concrete floor, a job that must be finished and in which there is no stopping point.
"Cases of this sort are always close. The problem is solved by a determination of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. It seems to us that the nature of his work peculiarly exposed the deceased to sunstroke. He was giving longer hours to the work than usual because the laying of the concrete must be completed. Other employes engaged in similar work had left. He remained trundling a heavy wheelbarrow and he was, for exceptional hours, exposed to the heat of an exceptional summer day. Under such circumstances, the risk of sunstroke was naturally connected with and reasonably incident to the work he was doing. He was exposed to a far different risk than the public generally. Schneider's Workmen's Compensation Law, § 333.
"The judgment will be reversed."
For the appellant, McDermott, Enright Carpenter ( Carl S. Kuebler, of counsel).
For the respondent, David Roskin.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court. For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, HEHER, VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, DILL, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.